“We’ve got work to do, but honestly getting this test behind us is a huge milestone.”

Share this story

Launch pad weather on Saturday morning was fine for a critical in-flight escape test of the Dragon spacecraft.

Trevor Mahlmann for Ars Technica

However seas were too rough offshore in the recovery area for the Dragon spacecraft, shown here.

Trevor Mahlmann for Ars Technica

As a result SpaceX will now target Sunday morning for the test.

Trevor Mahlmann for Ars Technica

The launch window opens at 8am ET.

Trevor Mahlmann for Ars Technica

A backup launch opportunity comes Monday.

Saturday, 6am ET Update: SpaceX announced early Saturday that it will stand down from its Crew Dragon launch escape test attempt due to sustained winds and rough seas in the recovery area. The company will now target a six-hour launch window that opens on Sunday at 8am ET (13:00 UTC) for the test.

Original post: Officials from NASA and SpaceX said final preparations were underway for a critical flight test of Crew Dragon's launch escape system on Saturday morning from Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The four-hour launch window opens at 8am ET (13:00 UTC), and SpaceX indicated it may use much of that time to find an ideal slot due to weather conditions.

At the beginning of the launch window, weather at the pad should be ideal, but forecasters have concerns about offshore winds and waves. Later in the morning on Saturday, weather at the recovery site is expected to improve, which means the launch may well slip closer to noon than the top of the window. SpaceX may also seek to extend the window, if necessary. If the launch slips a day, conditions are reversed Sunday, with less favorable weather at the launch site but better conditions offshore.

"It’s a nice dance between launch weather, optics, winds, and waves offshore," Mike McAleenan, launch weather officer with the Air Force's 45th Weather Squadron, said during a briefing on Friday.

A huge test

SpaceX's Benji Reed said the company has completed more than 700 tests of the SuperDraco thrusters that will power Dragon's escape system on Saturday. The thrusters will pull the spacecraft away from the Falcon 9 rocket during the simulated emergency. This launch-escape test follows a pad-abort test of the launch escape system in 2015.

Saturday's test will be short. At 84 seconds after the rocket blasts off, its Merlin engines will shut down, and the eight SuperDraco thrusters on board Crew Dragon will fire for about 10 seconds to rapidly pull the spacecraft away from the rocket. Two mannequins will be on board to record forces inside the cabin, which are not expected to exceed 4Gs.

Further Reading

"On launch day, we're hoping for it not to be exciting," said NASA's Kathy Lueders, manager of the commercial crew program for NASA, which is funding development of private spacecraft to deliver its astronauts to the International Space Station. "We are purposely failing a launch vehicle to make sure our abort system works."

After coasting to the highest point of its arcing flight, the Crew Dragon trunk will separate, and the capsule will orient itself for a return to Earth. First the drogue and then the main parachutes will deploy, which should happen about five minutes after launch. Air Force personnel as well as members of the SpaceX recovery team will await Crew Dragon in the ocean.

Should SpaceX successfully complete this flight, it will be that much closer toward launching astronauts Doug Hurley and Bob Behnken on the vehicle's first crewed mission. The date of that flight, which could come as soon as this spring, will be set after NASA works through data from this in-flight abort test as well as other tests conducted by the California-based company.

"We’ve got work to do, but honestly getting this test behind us is a huge milestone," Lueders said.

Bye, bye booster

The Falcon 9 rocket's first stage will not be recovered. It has already flown three missions. This is the very first Block 5 version of the Falcon 9 rocket that SpaceX built and launched, with missions in May, August, and December 2018. It is likely to break up during Dragon's energetic escape and will not be recovered. This breakup may occur shortly after Dragon separation or upon reentry from the upper atmosphere. The second stage will be fully fueled, but since it will not be used during the flight, it will have a mass simulator instead of an actual Merlin vacuum rocket engine.

This test flight will feature an upgraded parachute system for the Dragon spacecraft, called Mark 3 parachutes. To meet NASA's requirements for the upgraded parachutes, SpaceX performed 10 tests of the Mark 3 parachutes during the last couple of months of 2019. Lueders said the company will do a few more "system level" tests of the parachutes before the first crewed launch.

The webcast below should begin about 15 minutes before the launch window opens on Saturday morning.

424 Reader Comments

I long for the day when we don't need ideal conditions for a rocket launch, like a USS Voyager shuttlecraft or a DS9 runabout, we can just fire it up, take off, and tractor beam whatever we need into whichever orbit is required.

Im half hoping to see grid fins on the booster, implying that SpaceX might still try recovering it.

(The F9s are built sturdy for reuse after all)

Then again, I know nothing about the forces involved so maybe it’s literally impossible.

I doubt SpaceX would leave the fins attached if they don’t plan recovery considering the price of those.

NASA probably wants this to be as much like "the real thing" as possible. The paperwork required to make changes like that (omitting the grid fins) may not be worth it. One has to assume that the cost of a Merlin vacuum engine is enough that not losing one was worth the paperwork cost to SpaceX.

Im half hoping to see grid fins on the booster, implying that SpaceX might still try recovering it.

(The F9s are built sturdy for reuse after all)

Then again, I know nothing about the forces involved so maybe it’s literally impossible.

I doubt SpaceX would leave the fins attached if they don’t plan recovery considering the price of those.

Their plan for "failing" the rocket involves shutting off all the engines. So even if it were to somehow physically survive the abort test (it won't), it will be in an uncontrolled trajectory and will fall into the ocean.

If they're planning on dumping the first stage anyway, and they've got all the equipment on board, it would be interesting to see if they try a simulated landing, like they did in the early days before they put barges underneath them.

Two mannequins will be on board to record forces inside the cabin, which are not expected to exceed 4Gs.

I wonder if that's an average 4 g and they start at full throttle, or whether the abort starts already throttled a bit.

8 SuperDracos @ 73 kN = 584 kN. Wet mass = ~12.0 t. So full-throttle acceleration is 5.0 g. To get 4 g, they'd have to throttle down to 81% right from the git-go, and then throttle a bit lower as they burn off prop.

Edit: I forgot about drag at max q. You might need full thrust just to get to a net 4 g acceleration.

Im half hoping to see grid fins on the booster, implying that SpaceX might still try recovering it.

(The F9s are built sturdy for reuse after all)

Then again, I know nothing about the forces involved so maybe it’s literally impossible.

I doubt SpaceX would leave the fins attached if they don’t plan recovery considering the price of those.

As far as the public knows, no landing barge has been deployed for this launch. So no reason to have the fins, if the rocket has nowhere to land.

I liked this "speculation" from Chris B of NasaSpaceflight:"Y'all going to feel silly when the booster survives the event, belly flops into the Atlantic and single engine motorboats her way back to Port Canaveral."

Im half hoping to see grid fins on the booster, implying that SpaceX might still try recovering it.

(The F9s are built sturdy for reuse after all)

Then again, I know nothing about the forces involved so maybe it’s literally impossible.

I doubt SpaceX would leave the fins attached if they don’t plan recovery considering the price of those.

NASA probably wants this to be as much like "the real thing" as possible. The paperwork required to make changes like that (omitting the grid fins) may not be worth it. One has to assume that the cost of a Merlin vacuum engine is enough that not losing one was worth the paperwork cost to SpaceX.

There are no grid fins. The ars photo is too zoomed in to see but the lack of grid fins is obvious in this shot. Everyone say your goodbyes now the booster won't survive.

If they're planning on dumping the first stage anyway, and they've got all the equipment on board, it would be interesting to see if they try a simulated landing, like they did in the early days before they put barges underneath them.

The first stage is going to still be attached the second stage. Which will be fulled fueled. Hopefully, it will all lead to a big boom.

Im half hoping to see grid fins on the booster, implying that SpaceX might still try recovering it.

(The F9s are built sturdy for reuse after all)

Then again, I know nothing about the forces involved so maybe it’s literally impossible.

I doubt SpaceX would leave the fins attached if they don’t plan recovery considering the price of those.

NASA probably wants this to be as much like "the real thing" as possible. The paperwork required to make changes like that (omitting the grid fins) may not be worth it. One has to assume that the cost of a Merlin vacuum engine is enough that not losing one was worth the paperwork cost to SpaceX.

Space.com reports that the booster will not have fins. There is no expectation of recovery, Elon said the booster would be "consumed by dragon fire". Poetic, but I read that as "high likelihood of damage, unsafe to attempt return"

edit: not only ninja'd by Statistical, but ninja'd with directly inspectable photographic evidence...touché, Teacher.

It is likely to break up during Dragon's energetic escape and will not be recovered. This breakup may occur shortly after Dragon separation or upon reentry from the upper atmosphere.

I don't find the second part of this plausible. If there was a reasonable chance of surviving the Dragon abort, they'd have a working engine on the second stage to separate them, and landing hardware on the booster.

It is likely to break up during Dragon's energetic escape and will not be recovered. This breakup may occur shortly after Dragon separation or upon reentry from the upper atmosphere.

I don't find the second part of this plausible. If there was a reasonable chance of surviving the Dragon abort, they'd have a working engine on the second stage to separate them, and landing hardware on the booster.

Or not. Even if they could recover this booster it isn't flying again after being involved in an abort. So a recovery would only be valuable to gather information but SpaceX has done what 70+ recoveries and has half a dozen boosters available for detailed inspection, and every flight is chock full of telemetry. There just is no reason to recover this booster.

Im half hoping to see grid fins on the booster, implying that SpaceX might still try recovering it.

(The F9s are built sturdy for reuse after all)

Then again, I know nothing about the forces involved so maybe it’s literally impossible.

I doubt SpaceX would leave the fins attached if they don’t plan recovery considering the price of those.

NASA probably wants this to be as much like "the real thing" as possible. The paperwork required to make changes like that (omitting the grid fins) may not be worth it. One has to assume that the cost of a Merlin vacuum engine is enough that not losing one was worth the paperwork cost to SpaceX.

There are no grid fins. The ars photo is too zoomed in to see but the lack of grid fins is obvious in this shot. Everyone say your goodbyes now the booster won't survive.

Why are they picky about the launch window if it's not inserting to any particular orbit? Is it 100% just the weather?

There's a lot of coordination with air traffic and boats off the coast of the launch site. They have to forbid any traffic from entering the area for the duration of the launch window so even though they're not aiming for a particular orbit, they still have to obey the launch window.

Honest question, why not blow the thing up? Surely that's a more real world scenario? Or is it assumed that modern sensors and telemetry will be able to reliably detect a failure before boom? I know we've come a long way from "three wires running down the length of the booster" method, but are they fully testing it without actually destroying the booster?

Why are they picky about the launch window if it's not inserting to any particular orbit? Is it 100% just the weather?

There's a lot of coordination with air traffic and boats off the coast of the launch site. They have to forbid any traffic from entering the area for the duration of the launch window so even though they're not aiming for a particular orbit, they still have to obey the launch window.

Plus the USAF (or... is it Space Force now?) needs to set up and tear down their launch tracking radars before and after the window, which means they need to have operational staff on site before and after for setup/teardown. I imagine the longest you'll get is ~4 hours so that it can be done in a shift.

Quote:

Honest question, why not blow the thing up? Surely that's a more real world scenario? Or is it assumed that modern sensors and telemetry will be able to reliably detect a failure before boom? I know we've come a long way from "three wires running down the length of the booster" method, but are they fully testing it without actually destroying the booster?

There's probably not a lot of scenarios where a liquid-fueled rocket gets to the "explode" part without hints of things going wrong first.

It is likely to break up during Dragon's energetic escape and will not be recovered. This breakup may occur shortly after Dragon separation or upon reentry from the upper atmosphere.

I don't find the second part of this plausible. If there was a reasonable chance of surviving the Dragon abort, they'd have a working engine on the second stage to separate them, and landing hardware on the booster.

There just is no reason to recover this booster.

Except to put it in a museum, maybe. First Block 5 certainly deserves it.

But SpaceX has and will have enough firsts to fill up every display yard they have, so maybe it's better to not be so sentimental -- or be more sentimental and look at it like a Viking funeral!

Why are they picky about the launch window if it's not inserting to any particular orbit? Is it 100% just the weather?

There's a lot of coordination with air traffic and boats off the coast of the launch site. They have to forbid any traffic from entering the area for the duration of the launch window so even though they're not aiming for a particular orbit, they still have to obey the launch window.

It’s almost certain that they want the best telemetry possible, eyeballs included, so their dream scenario would be clear skies at both sites.

This is a lot about SEEING how the system works, at least for this first test.

Another thought; when I read the names for the crewed test, “Dear God...strapping real people onto a big pipe with a semi-controlled, slow motion bomb exploding underneath them” - popped into my head.

I mean, I ran the medical unit at the USAF RPL at Edwards. I saw things...good and bad...I’ll never forget. But for some reason, after nearly 60 years of flying things, including rockets, I just had that what-the-hell-are-we-thinking flash.

Lastly, really glad I’m not dead yet and get to see this. Two of my favorite Heinlein stories are the paired “The Man Who Sold The Moon” and “Requiem” - Musk could be D.D. Harriman.

What I've got from the press conference is1) more chutes tests coming.It seems there is no end to this. They've got the 10 tests already. This will be the 11th. They also did around 20-ish more tests with a single chute (with the newest v3 iteration)

2) Kathy Lueders does seems to like the approach of SpaceX better. (test vs sims)When confronted with the question about Boeing doing simulations she was talking like a politician at first, but I think her mood was clear enough.

3) There are additional cameras to film the ordeal. Hopefully some of those goodies will come our way.

What I've got from the press conference is1) more chutes tests coming.It seems there is no end to this. They've got the 10 tests already. This will be the 11th. They also did around 20-ish more test with a single chute (with the newest v3 iteration)

2) Kathy Lueders does seems to like the approach of SpaceX better. (test vs sims)When confronted with the question about Boeing doing simulations she was talking like a politician at first, but I think her mood was clear enough.

3) There are additional cameras to film the ordeal. Hopefully some of those goodies will come our way.

Additional interesting tidbits:

Kathy:

Quote:

We're light years ahead in our understanding of how high-flow propellant systems work as a result of the anomaly last year, the investigation, and the changes made.

Benji:

Quote:

We've learned things that no one in the industry knew because of that anomaly.

Why fuel the second stage if its not needed? Isn't there another mass/volume equivalent replacement that won't be as wasteful or harmful to the environment?

Test as you fly. Fly as you test. Nothing worse than passing the test and then failing in actual use because of differences between the test and actual abort.

I was thinking about that earlier, and it made me think about the Apollo abort test. I had told someone this morning that we had not seen a true in flight abort test since the sixties. But, that is not correct is it? Even with Apollo, the test took place at relatively a low altitude. The only comparison are the actual Soyuz aborts. Is this right?